INTERNATIoNAL

Democracy, Terrorism, and Foreign Policy: Implications of Killing Nigeria Softly Disintegration

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

T

he nexus between and among democracy, terrorism and foreign policy is quite interesting: international connectivity. Democracy is an international value that is being forced on all countries of the world. It is a major constituent of the United States’ foreign policy. It is generally considered as the best form of government in contemporary international relations. In fact, democracy been made a conditionality by the developed world for economic cooperation and development assistance. 

On 20 June 1990 French President, François Mitterrand, apparently taking into account the dismantlement of the Soviet Union following perestroika and glasnost (restructuring and openness) told all Francophone African leaders that France would only give development assistance to  countries that accept multiparty democracy. This, expectedly, was to put an end to the one-party system that was in vogue in many French-speaking African countries. In the words of President Mitterrand, ‘la France liera tout son effort de contribution aux efforts qui seront accomplis pour aller vers plus la liberté ; il y aura une aide normale de la France à l’égard des pays africains, mais il est évident que cette aide sera plus tiède envers ceux qui se comporteraient de façon autoritaire, et plus enthousiate enver ceux qui franchiront, avec courage, ce pas vers la démocratisation…Il ne faut pas voir la liberté comme un ennemi caché. Elle sera votre meilleure amie.’  

Put differently, President Mitterrand said, ‘France will link all its assistance effort that will be accomplished more towards liberty; there will be normal aid from France to African countries, but it is clear that this aid will be more lukewarm towards those who would behave in a dictatorial manner, and be more disposed towards those who will achieve with courage, this path towards democratisation… Liberty should not be seen as a hidden enemy. It will be your best friend.’ This statement is considered one of the most, if not the most, important political statements pronounced by President Mitterrand in his 14 years as President of France. This is because of the implications in international economic relations.

In the same vein, terrorism is precisely a negation of democracy, anti-rule of law, anti-orderliness, and therefore unlawful. It is internationally prohibited by various international conventions. Political terrorism, like in the cases of liberalisation in Africa should not be confused with criminal terrorism like in the case of US 9/11. In both cases of democratisation and containment of terror, foreign policy is the instrument of management. In Nigeria, democracy, terrorism and foreign cum domestic policies are killing Nigeria softly most unfortunately.

Manifestations of the Nexus 

At the level of democracy in Nigeria, it is difficult to argue that there is democracy in the country. Even though many scholars have submitted that there is no perfect democracy. Democracy in Nigeria does not truly respond to any logic, good or bad. There is no democratic governance in the sense of free participation in decision-taking. Imagine, for instance, how the National Working Committee of the ruling party, All Progressives Congress, can be given  almighty powers to decide the fate of political aspirants without any room for complaints or appeal.

Democracy preaches fairness, equity, accountability, transparency, and justice as elements of good governance. Most unfortunately, political governance in Nigeria does not obey the rules of fairness, equity and justice. One good illustration is the politics of electoral zoning. The gentleman agreement is that there will be presidential rotation between the North and the South. When there is a Northern president who governs for two terms of four years, it should be the turn of the South to also provide the president for the next eight years. This agreement is meant to respond to the challenges of ethno-religious diversity and character of the Nigerian society. It is also meant to ensure equity participation of every community in such a way that if one area in the north provides the president, it is expected that when it comes to the turn of the North after eight years, another area in the North should normally be given the opportunity to provide the presidential candidate.

Most unfortunately, however, President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) will have done eight years in power by May 2023. This implies that it should be the turn of the South to be given the opportunity to also provide the President in 2023. The 2022 party primaries that will enable the shift of power to the south are being manoeuvred. The gold post is being shifted under ludicrous excuses. In other words, political leaders are not in any way concerned about fairness or justice and even about sanctity of agreements. 

There is the screening of the APC presidential standard bearers, numbering 23. The screening committee, chaired by Chief John Oyegun, disqualified ten of them contrary to the provisions of Sections 42 and 137 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Article 42 provides for the right to freedom from discrimination, while Section 137 provides for disqualification of any presidential candidate who has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country or is found to be lunatic, undischarged bankrupt, is found to have been convicted, or to be a member of a secret cult, or has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission, etc.

Regardless of the reasons for the disqualification of the ten presidential candidates, it is fundamentally wrong to allow a candidate to pay as much as N100m for nomination form, allow such a candidate to travel to all the nooks and crannies of Nigeria campaigning, only to disqualify him by fiat and by whatever criteria 72 hours to the time of the party convention. Where is the justice and fairness in democratic governance in this case? The Screening Committee has reportedly considered the age and dual citizenship of candidates. Why is it that the criteria have not been made known before the screening interview and even before selling of forms to applicants? We strongly believe that there is the need to have made such criteria known to all contestants before purchase of the costly nomination form. The fundamental right of those disqualified, not on the basis of the reasons provided in the 1999 Constitution, has been illegally and undemocratically breached.

Additionally, political leaders talk about consensus. Consensus can be democratic. In Nigeria, it is synonymous with imposition. Inability to contest in the spirit of competition is necessarily dictatorial and therefore not democratic. And perhaps more disturbingly, six critical challenges of democracy in Nigeria has been identified by the nigerianfinder.com: corruption, which we all know, has become institutional; poor justice delivery which is also becoming increasingly monetised; high cost of governance, which raises the suggestion that the country should return to a parliamentary system of government; poverty and illiteracy, for which Nigeria has been touted to be the new world capital; insecurity for which Nigeria is also recognised as a leader in Africa; and cross carpeting, though not illegal, but an expression of immoralism.

The problem of cross carpeting is most critical. Though cross carpeting is considered to be lawful, the fundamental act of injustice is that voters are subjected to the selfishness of politicians who are given the mandate of an individual voter or that of a political party but taken to another political party without the consent of the initial voter. Most disturbingly in this case is the fraudulent monetisation of party conventions where delegates are purchased like commodities to vote. It is the politics of highest bidder or offer, meaning that vote is not a function of interest in a candidate, not a function of competence of a candidate. And yet this display of money laundering is called democracy.

Regarding terrorism, Nigeria undoubtedly has become a terra cognita for worst forms of violent crimes: armed banditry coupled with reckless Islamic-motivated killings of alleged unbelievers in the northern part of Nigeria; boko haramist insurrection aimed at Islamising and disintegrating Nigeria; herdsmen and farmers’ conflict in which the herdsmen, mostly Fulani, are reportedly engaged in rape of women, killings of farmland owners, and allegations of their cattle also destroying farm products; the insurrection of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) for a separate and independent State of Biafra in the Southeast, and the agitation of the Southwest for restructuring of the polity, failure of which the Yoruba southwest are also looking forward to an autonomous Oduduwa Republic.

In the Southeast, attacks on people and public institutions are common. The identity of the attackers is hardly known. While Government prefers to hold the IPOB agitators responsible, the IPOB refutes vehemently such criminal activities, arguing that they cannot destroy their own institutions as they are not part of their targets. Whatever is the case, the IPOB has a commanding influence in the Southeast to the extent that when it says that markets should not be opened on Mondays people comply either for fear of being attacked or in supportive compliance.

The agitation for self-determination in the Yoruba Southwest is apparently non-violent but this does not mean that the way they are going about it with the PMB administration showing more of nepotistic policies and non-preparedness to restructure the polity, resorting to use of violence, may not be ruled out. Thus, Nigeria is on the path of being killed softly. Nigeria’s support for the African Union’s suggestion on the need to quickly establish an African Standby Force Against Terrorism is therefore quite understandable. What is not quite understandable, however, is how PMB would have donated $1 million to Afghanistan in humanitarian aid and also pledge another $3million to the newly created AU humanitarian agency, but without having any donation or pledge to provide funds for university education in Nigeria?

Finally, concerning foreign policy, the PMB administration operates as if domestic problems can be clearly ignored to the advantage of foreign policy. Policy is necessarily a continuum in which the domestic policy is at the bottom and the foreign policy is at the crescendo, and therefore allowing for vertical movements up and down, all movements complementing one another. Most unfortunately, however, foreign policy which is also required to use the international environment to assist domestic growth and development cannot be so used in various ways in the context of Nigeria.

Nigeria’s diplomatic missions cannot defend the indefensible abroad, more so that diplomatic missions in Nigeria are better informed than Nigerians living at home regarding political developments in Nigeria. Nigeria has an international image of a terrorist country even if PMB thinks he can give impression of normalcy in Nigeria by frequently travelling abroad. He has travelled out of Nigeria eight times in the past five months, while the home front is on fire, while kidnapped victims are begging for mercy.

 Killing Nigeria Softly: One Solution  

PMB, for me, is killing Nigeria softly. This is why he is the problematique. Nigerians, and particularly his close collaborators who assist him in political governance are the problems. PMB is considered the problematic because of his view of Nigeria and Nigerians and his military background. For instance, PMB as a soldier, cares less about human life. He is only used to commanding and not to negotiating. He strongly believes in the indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria. As such, there is nothing like any advocacy for restructuring of Nigeria that can or should be listened to. It is his own viewpoint as President that matters.

Without whiff of doubt, the 1999 Constitution provides that ‘We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having resolved to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign Nation under God and therefore decided in Article 2(3) of the Constitution that ‘Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble, Sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.’

Good as this provision may be, the relevant question is why countries have similar provisions on national unity, indivisibility and indissolubility, but still end up in national disintegration. Why were national constitutions set aside? Why should war replace the constitution? Asked differently, why the disintegration of Yugoslavia? If Eritrea was once part of Ethiopia, how do we explain its political independence and territorial integrity as of today? For many decades, South Sudan was an integral part of Sudan. How do we explain its being carved out of Sudan? After disintegration, why has the United Nations recognised the existence of the new States and has even accepted them into the membership of the United Nations?

The point being made here is that there can be constitutional provisions that prohibit disunity and dissolution of an existing country but that does not mean that the constitutional provisions cannot be jettisoned or reviewed. International law allows for self-determination, not only in the context of decolonisation, but also within the framework of an existing sovereign state. Admittedly, the United Nations Charter does not encourage de-territorialisation of any Member State of the United Nations. However, many Member States of the United Nations have been de-territorialised. Consequently, there cannot be a great deal with the arguments of indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria. 

There is no disputing the fact that there is regional inequity in Nigeria, that there is no religious harmony in Nigeria, that public housing delivery is very problematic, and that there are fundamental socio-economic problems ranging from unemployment and access to electricity to paucity of good infrastructure and general insecurity. If we all admit that Nigeria is challenged by institutional corruption, political greed and poor human development, by agitation for separation and terrorism, unending public university strikes and police brutalities, increasing criminals with impunity, as well as by high cost of living and food insecurity, one cannot be left in any iota of doubt that Nigeria is being killed quietly and softly.

As revealed by the Boston Consulting Group in a report, food insecurity is looming in Nigeria, and this is largely explained by heavy reliance on food importation, civil unrest, high inflation, high import bills, climate risks and high debt burden. How can Government have adequate resources to grow and develop Nigeria when more than 60% of the revenues is diverted to debt servicing? Why should anyone expect growth and development when a public servant can be reported to have stolen billions of naira? Even at the level of the presidential primaries, how do we explain that a nomination form can cost N100m? What is the financial status of the applicants? All those who have taken the forms, how much do they pay as tax?

And perhaps most ridiculously, the Government of Nigeria is not capable of containing the armed banditry and the Boko Haram insurgency, and particularly their kidnapping activities which have become recidivist. Kidnappers not only threaten to kill their victims when they do not pay the demanded ransom but actually mistreat them, behead them and dump them into pits. To avoid the inhuman treatment by the kidnappers, relations of kidnapped victims often arrange to settle with the terrorists and kidnappers. 

And yet, Government that is incapable of solving the problem or incapable of providing security is now talking about criminalising payment of ransoms to kidnappers. Why seek to punish the aggrieved, unprotected kidnapped victims and their relations and not the terrorists? Kidnappers and terrorists, whatever names they answer, Boko Haram or bandits or ISWAP, are given pardon and rehabilitated. The law-abiding Nigerians do not have the same treatment of fairness. Has Nigeria no heart anymore? Where is that heart of Nigerianess? As a matter of fact, it is very shameful that relations of those aggressed and kidnapped in the Abuja-Kaduna train mishap can be begging to exchange their relations with the children of the terrorists and kidnappers in government’s custody? Why should the Abuja-Kaduna train victims continue to suffer in captivity? 

Many school children that have been kidnapped for some years are still in captivity. There is the need to reconcile incapacity to keep the peace and security at home with the capacity to engage in peace support operations outside of Nigeria. If Nigeria is weeping, she must also learn how to see at the same time. If Nigeria refuses to learn, the implication is necessarily the dissolution of Nigeria by force, by manu militari, or by negotiated settlement through United Nations referendum. In this regard, the reasons cannot be far-fetched: refusing to listen to public calls for restructuring of Nigeria, refusing to address other public complaints on nepotism in political governance, keeping quiet about various allegations that there are Boko Haram agents in government, keeping quiet about allegations of the military aiding and abetting kidnapping and Boko Haram insurrection, refusal to allow space for true federalism, refusing to stop conscious planning for election rigging, pressurising an Independent National Electoral Commission to lose its independent integrity, and showing arrogant disregard for allegations of Islamisation and Fulanisation agenda cannot respond to the logic of silence being a best answer to a fool. Silence may not be an answer, not to suggest being the best answer to a fool. The truth is that the foregoing observations of ‘foolishness’ if we take them as such, are only killing Nigeria softly and in an irreversible manner. One leeway to quickly put a stop to the slide towards national disintegration is the political will to recognise and accept that Nigeria is on the fast lane of disintegration. By so doing, the most critical allegations of Fulani hegemony, Islamisation and government purportedly aiding insurrection in order to prolong PMB’s further stay in government or to enable the North to hang on to power, can only be addressed in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect.